TY - JOUR
T1 - Non-stimulus-evoked activity as a measure of neural noise in the frequency-following response
AU - Krizman, Jennifer
AU - Bonacina, Silvia
AU - Otto-Meyer, Rembrandt
AU - Kraus, Nina
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank the members of the Auditory Neuroscience Laboratory, past and present, for their help with data collection and processing. The authors also thank Travis White-Schwoch and Trent Nicol for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. This work was supported by National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) R01-NS102500 and the Knowles Hearing Center, Northwestern University .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2021/10/1
Y1 - 2021/10/1
N2 - Background: The frequency-following response, or FFR, is a neurophysiologic response that captures distinct aspects of sound processing. Like all evoked responses, FFR is susceptible to electric and myogenic noise contamination during collection. Click-evoked auditory brainstem response collection standards have been adopted for FFR collection, however, whether these standards sufficiently limit FFR noise contamination is unknown. Thus, a critical question remains: to what extent do distinct FFR components reflect noise contamination? This is especially relevant for prestimulus amplitude (i.e., activity preceding the evoked response), as this measure has been used to index both noise contamination and neural noise. New method: We performed two experiments. First, using >1000 young-adult FFRs, we ran regressions to determine the variance explained by myogenic and electrical noise, as indexed by artifact rejection count and electrode impedance, on each FFR component. Second, we reanalyzed prestimulus amplitude differences attributed to athletic experience and socioeconomic status, adding covariates of artifact rejection and impedance. Results: We found that non-neural noise marginally contributed to FFR components and could not explain group differences on prestimulus amplitude. Comparison with existing method: Prestimulus amplitude has been considered a measure of non-neural noise contamination. However, non-neural noise was not the sole contributor to variance in this measure and did not explain group differences. Conclusions: Results from the two experiments suggest that the effects of non-neural noise on FFR components are minimal and do not obscure individual differences in the FFR and that prestimulus amplitude indexes neural noise.
AB - Background: The frequency-following response, or FFR, is a neurophysiologic response that captures distinct aspects of sound processing. Like all evoked responses, FFR is susceptible to electric and myogenic noise contamination during collection. Click-evoked auditory brainstem response collection standards have been adopted for FFR collection, however, whether these standards sufficiently limit FFR noise contamination is unknown. Thus, a critical question remains: to what extent do distinct FFR components reflect noise contamination? This is especially relevant for prestimulus amplitude (i.e., activity preceding the evoked response), as this measure has been used to index both noise contamination and neural noise. New method: We performed two experiments. First, using >1000 young-adult FFRs, we ran regressions to determine the variance explained by myogenic and electrical noise, as indexed by artifact rejection count and electrode impedance, on each FFR component. Second, we reanalyzed prestimulus amplitude differences attributed to athletic experience and socioeconomic status, adding covariates of artifact rejection and impedance. Results: We found that non-neural noise marginally contributed to FFR components and could not explain group differences on prestimulus amplitude. Comparison with existing method: Prestimulus amplitude has been considered a measure of non-neural noise contamination. However, non-neural noise was not the sole contributor to variance in this measure and did not explain group differences. Conclusions: Results from the two experiments suggest that the effects of non-neural noise on FFR components are minimal and do not obscure individual differences in the FFR and that prestimulus amplitude indexes neural noise.
KW - Artifact
KW - Electrophysiology
KW - Frequency following response
KW - Impedance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85111040471&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85111040471&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2021.109290
DO - 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2021.109290
M3 - Article
C2 - 34273451
AN - SCOPUS:85111040471
SN - 0165-0270
VL - 362
JO - Journal of Neuroscience Methods
JF - Journal of Neuroscience Methods
M1 - 109290
ER -